I have a particular classification problem that I was able to improve using Python's abs() function. I am still somewhat new when it comes to machine learning, and I wanted to know if what I am doing is actually "allowed," so to speak, for improving a regression problem. The following line describes my method:
lr = linear_model.LinearRegression()
predicted = abs(cross_val_predict(lr, features, labels_postop_IS, cv=10))
I attempted this solution because linear regression can sometimes produce negative predictions values, even though my particular case, these predictions should never be negative, as they are a physical quantity.
Using the abs() function, my predictions produce a better fit for the data.
Is this allowed?
Why would it not be "allowed". I mean if you want to make certain statistical statements (like a 95% CI e.g.) you need to be careful. However, most ML practitioners do not care too much about underlying statistical assumptions and just want a blackbox model that can be evaluated based on accuracy or some other performance metric. So basically everything is allowed in ML, you just have to be careful not to overfit. Maybe a more sensible solution to your problem would be to use a function that truncates at 0 like f(x) = x if x > 0 else 0. This way larger negative values don't suddenly become large positive ones.
On a side note, you should probably try some other models as well with more parameters like a SVR with a non-linear kernel. The thing is obviously that a LR fits a line, and if this line is not parallel to your x-axis (thinking in the single variable case) it will inevitably lead to negative values at some point on the line. That's one reason for why it is often advised not to use LRs for predictions outside the "fitted" data.
A straight line y=a+bx will predict negative y for some x unless a>0 and b=0. Using logarithmic scale seems natural solution to fix this.
In the case of linear regression, there is no restriction on your outputs.
If your data is non-negative (as in your case the values are physical quantities and cannot be negative), you could model using a generalized linear model (GLM) with a log link function. This is known as Poisson regression and is helpful for modeling discrete non-negative counts such as the problem you described. The Poisson distribution is parameterized by a single value λ, which describes both the expected value and the variance of the distribution.
I cannot say your approach is wrong but a better way is to go towards the above method.
This results in an approach that you are attempting to fit a linear model to the log of your observations.
Related
I have LinearSVC algorithm that predicts some data for stock. It has a 90% acc rating, but I think this might be due to the fact that some y's are far more likely than others. I want to see if there is a way to see if for each y I've defined, how accurately that y was predicted.
I haven't seen anything like this in the docs, but it just makes sense to have it.
If what your really want is a measure of confidence rather than actual probabilities, you can use the method LinearSVC.decision_function(). See the documentation or the probability calibration CalibratedClassifierCV using this documentation.
You can use a confusion matrix representation implemented in SciKit to generate an accuracy matrix between the predicted and real values of your classification problem for each individual attribute. The diagonal represents the raw accuracy, which can easily be converted to a percentage accuracy.
I am trying to evaluate the performance of a regressor by means of GridSearchCV. In my implementation cv is an int, so I'm applying the K-fold validation method. Looking at cv_results_['mean_test_score'],
the best mean score on the k-fold unseen data is around 0.7, while the train scores are much higher, like 0.999. This is very normal, and I'm ok with that.
Well, following the reasoning behind this concept, when I apply the best_estimator_ on the whole data set, I expect to see at least some part of the data predicted not perfectly, right? Instead, the numerical deviations between the predicted quantities and the real values are near zero for all datapoints. And this smells of overfitting.
I don't understand that, because if I remove a small part of the data and apply GridSearchCV to the remaining part, I find almost identical results as above, but the best regressor applied to the totally unseen data predicts with much higher errors, like 10%, 30% or 50%. Which is what I expected, at least for some points, fitting GridSearchCV on the whole set, based on the results of k-fold test sets.
Now, I understand that this forces the predictor to see all datapoints, but the best estimator is the result of k fits, each of them never saw 1/k fraction of data. Being the mean_test_score the average between these k scores, I expect to see a bunch of predictions (depending on cv value) which show errors distributed around a mean error that justifies a 0.7 score.
The refit=True parameter of GridSearchCV makes the estimator with the found best set of hyperparameters be refit on the full data. So if your training error is almost zero in the CV folds, you would expect it to be near zero in the best_estimator_ as well.
I am pretty new to Tensorflow, and I am currently learning it through given website https://www.tensorflow.org/get_started/get_started
It is said in the manual that:
We've created a model, but we don't know how good it is yet. To evaluate the model on training data, we need a y placeholder to provide the desired values, and we need to write a loss function.
A loss function measures how far apart the current model is from the provided data. We'll use a standard loss model for linear regression, which sums the squares of the deltas between the current model and the provided data. linear_model - y creates a vector where each element is the corresponding example's error delta. We call tf.square to square that error. Then, we sum all the squared errors to create a single scalar that abstracts the error of all examples using tf.reduce_sum:"
q1."we don't know how good it is yet.", I didn't understand this
quote as the simple model created is a simple slope equation and on
what it should train for?, as the model is a simple slope. Is it
require an perfect slope or what? why am I training that model and
for what?
q2.what is a loss function? Is loss function is used to determine the
accuracy of the model? Why is it required?
q3. I didn't understand " 'sums the squares of the deltas' between
the current model and the provided data."
q4.I didn't understood this part of code,"squared_deltas =
tf.square(linear_model - y)
this is the code:
y = tf.placeholder(tf.float32)
squared_deltas = tf.square(linear_model - y)
loss = tf.reduce_sum(squared_deltas)
print(sess.run(loss, {x:[1,2,3,4], y:[0,-1,-2,-3]}))
this may be simple questions, but I am a beginner to Tensorflow and having a hard time understanding it.
1) So you're kind of right about "Why should we train for a simple problem" but this is just an introduction piece. With any machine learning task you need to evaluate your model to see how good it is. In this case you are just trying to train to find the coefficients for the line of best fit.
2) A loss function in any machine learning context represents your error with your model. This usually means a function of your "distance" of your calculated value to the ground truth value. Think of it as an internal evaluation score. You want to minimise your loss so the gradients and parameter changes are based on your loss.
3/4) Your question here is more to do with least square regression. It's a statistical method to create lines of best fit between points. The deltas represent the differences between your calculated values and the truth values. The aim is to minimise the area of the squares and hence minise the error and have a better line of best fit.
What you are doing in this Tensorflow example is creating a machine learning model that will learn the coefficients for the line of best fit automatically using a least squares based system.
Pretty much all of your question have to-do with the loss function.
The loss function is a function that determines how far apart your output are from the expected (correct) output.
It has two usages:
Help the algorithm determine if the tweaking of the weight is helping going in the good or bad direction
Determinate the accuracy (~the number of time your system guesses the correct answer)
The loss function is the sum of the deltas witch is: the addition of the diff (delta) between the expected output and the actual output.
I think It's squared to magnifies the error the algorithm makes.
I am trying to lean SVC classifier of SVM model in sklearn. I have learned to use it on various datasets and even applied gridsearch to improve the results but I have not yet understood some parameters like C, gamma.
If anyone can give me simple but detail explanation of each parameter, it would be great.
Since we are trying to minimize some objective function, we can add some 'size' measure of the coefficient vector itself to the function. C is essentially the inverse of the weight on that 'regularization' term. Decreasing C will prevent overfitting by forcing the coefficients to be sparse or small, depending on the penalty. Increasing C too much will promote underfitting.
Gamma is a parameter for the RBF kernel. Increasing gamma allows for a more complex decision boundary (which can lead to overfitting, but can also improve results--it depends on the data).
This scikit-learn tutorial graphically shows the effect of changing both hyperparameters.
I have data which has an associated binary outcome variable. Naturally I ran a logistic regression in order to see parameter estimates and odds ratios. I was curious though, to change this data from a binary outcome to count data. Then I ran a poisson regression (and negative binomial regression) on the count data.
I have no idea of how to compare these different models though, all comparisons I see seem to only be concerned with nested models.
How would you go about deciding on the best model to use in this situation?
Essentially both models will be roughly equal. What really matters is what is your objective- what you really want to predict. If you want to determine how many of cases are good or bad (1 or 0), then you go for logistic regression. If you are really interested on how much the cases are going to do (counts) then do poisson.
In other words, the only difference between these two models is the logistic transformation and the fact that logistic regression tries to minimize the misclassification error (-2 log likelihood) .To put it simply, even if you run a linear regression (OLS) on the binary outcome, you should not see big differences from your logistic model apart from the fact that the results may not be between 0 and 1 (e.g. the Area under the RoC curve will be similar to the logistic model) .
To sum up, don't worry about which of these two models is better, they should be roughly the same in the way the capture your features' information. Just think what makes more sense to optimize, counts or probabilties. The answer might have been different if you were considering non-linear models (e.g random forests or neural networks etc), but the two you are considering are both (almost) linear- so don't worry about it.
One thing to consider is the sample design. If you are using a case-control study, then logistic regression is the way to go because of its logit link function, rather than log of ratios as in Poisson regression. This is because, where there is an oversampling of cases such as in case-control study, odds ratio is unbiased.